# A close-up look **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Tags:** think\ **Created:** [January 18, 2025, 5:42pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/a-close-up-look/198742 "2025-01-18T17:42:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![VDCdriver](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/vdcdriver/32/30_2.png) [@VDCdriver](https://community.cartalk.com/u/VDCdriver)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2025, 5:42pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/a-close-up-look/198742/1 "2025-01-18T17:42:01Z")
… at the technology behind the Tucker automobile. When you consider that these design concepts for a “family car” originated in 1946, it’s really remarkable. Some of the details changed before the limited run of Tucker cars began, but some of them were retained. [![](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/original/3X/d/b/db1529fbf10b03bfe53ea088af13d9d01adfa288.jpeg "The Original 1948 Tucker Test Chassis Still Exists With a 589 Cubic Inch Flat Six Cylinder Engine") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WF9yAc2CDFk) ---
**Author:** ![davesmopar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/davesmopar/32/41750_2.png) [@davesmopar](https://community.cartalk.com/u/davesmopar)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2025, 6:01pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/a-close-up-look/198742/2 "2025-01-18T18:01:00Z")
Cool video… I can only imagine what thoughts were going through our resident chassis/brake engineers mind the 1st time he saw this… lol I’m sure it was years ago though… ---
**Author:** ![Cavell](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/cavell/32/43396_2.png) [@Cavell](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Cavell)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2025, 6:10pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/a-close-up-look/198742/3 "2025-01-18T18:10:03Z")
Rear engine design is crazy. Motor/trans combo is compact but execution is not good. About as dumb as corvair design. Doomed to fail. ---
**Author:** ![VDCdriver](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/vdcdriver/32/30_2.png) [@VDCdriver](https://community.cartalk.com/u/VDCdriver)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2025, 6:45pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/a-close-up-look/198742/4 "2025-01-18T18:45:33Z")
> [@Cavell](#): > > Rear engine design is crazy. Yeah, Porsche has been a total failure… for 75+ years. 😏 ---
**Author:** ![bing](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/bing/32/4619_2.png) [@bing](https://community.cartalk.com/u/bing)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2025, 7:14pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/a-close-up-look/198742/5 "2025-01-18T19:14:11Z")
Heh heh. Yeah and vw was a total failure. Had both a vw and a corvair. Fun cars. ---
**Author:** ![jtsanders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c2a13f/32.png) [@jtsanders](https://community.cartalk.com/u/jtsanders)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2025, 9:16pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/a-close-up-look/198742/6 "2025-01-18T21:16:10Z")
A 589 ci six?! The cylinders must be the same size as a coffee can. ---
**Author:** ![VDCdriver](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/vdcdriver/32/30_2.png) [@VDCdriver](https://community.cartalk.com/u/VDCdriver)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2025, 11:07pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/a-close-up-look/198742/7 "2025-01-18T23:07:40Z")
Just imagine the torque! ---
**Author:** ![It\_s-Me](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/it_s-me/32/12660_2.png) [@It\_s-Me](https://community.cartalk.com/u/It_s-Me)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2025, 12:06am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/a-close-up-look/198742/8 "2025-01-19T00:06:23Z")
> [@jtsanders](#): > > A 589 ci six?! The cylinders must be the same size as a coffee can. 1.6 liters a cylinder ---
**Author:** ![VDCdriver](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/vdcdriver/32/30_2.png) [@VDCdriver](https://community.cartalk.com/u/VDCdriver)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2025, 12:21am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/a-close-up-look/198742/9 "2025-01-19T00:21:45Z")
So, just one cylinder was the same displacement as the entire engine of a Nissan Juke! ---
**Author:** ![oldtimer-11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e79b87/32.png) [@oldtimer-11](https://community.cartalk.com/u/oldtimer-11)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2025, 12:39pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/a-close-up-look/198742/10 "2025-01-19T12:39:41Z")
You may remember that VW and Porsche had some success with that design. ---
**Author:** ![Cavell](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/cavell/32/43396_2.png) [@Cavell](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Cavell)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2025, 2:14pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/a-close-up-look/198742/11 "2025-01-19T14:14:21Z")
Vw bug had lousy winter heat. How Many came with ac? Same for corvair. I had both. I drove the corvair once and we took out the motor and put in a v8. Well that was the plan from the start. Had zero recollection where the stock motor went. Sold for parts? ---
**Author:** ![Mustangman](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/mustangman/32/44130_2.png) [@Mustangman](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Mustangman)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2025, 2:16pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/a-close-up-look/198742/12 "2025-01-19T14:16:59Z")
Rear engine, yes, but placing the engine at the centerline of the rear axle is better than hanging it out behind the rear axle. Much less oversteer to compensate for with other suspension elements. But TWO torque convertors and 589 cid? That would have been a fuel hog! AND camless hydraulic valve actuation? Why? If it was variable lift and duration, I can see the benefits (we do that today) but it would be very unreliable in 1946. The production cars ditched the mid-axle position of the engine and DID hang the engine out behind the axle centerline like VW, Porsche and Tatra. As for the suspension… rubber ride doesn’t provide enough damping. Anyone who has towed a trailer with the rubber torsion springs understands this. The parallelogram control arms would lead to oversteer if pushed hard because as the body rolls, the tire rolls identically losing traction with every degree. Tatra used this type on the front with a different design on the rear to promote more rear grip - did not eliminate all the oversteer but reduced it. The production design used a trailing arm rear like an early VW front suspension. Still not so good! Now they added deflection steer along with the body roll stealing traction. The Tucker boys talk about how good this thing drives but they are promoting the car as so very advanced for the day. I’d bet it handles terribly. Tucker was such a great promoter, hustler, and huckster the entire business was based on smoke and mirrors. Unlike a similar hustler, Carroll Shelby, he couldn’t pull it off. ---
**Author:** ![Cavell](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/cavell/32/43396_2.png) [@Cavell](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Cavell)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2025, 2:24pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/a-close-up-look/198742/13 "2025-01-19T14:24:27Z")
The corvair v8 uses stock trans and rotates it so motor is in back seat area. Corvair motor has reverse rotation compared to v8 so the v8 ends up with forward motion as trans is rotating “backwards”. So our v8 was between trans and driver. We put a toronado v8/trans in a corvair van too. And torsion bar suspension too. My dad was pretty technically inclined. ---
**Author:** ![VDCdriver](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/vdcdriver/32/30_2.png) [@VDCdriver](https://community.cartalk.com/u/VDCdriver)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2025, 3:24pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/a-close-up-look/198742/14 "2025-01-19T15:24:52Z")
> [@Mustangman](#): > > That would have been a fuel hog! I don’t think that fuel economy was something that most folks considered, back in the '40s. Willys tried promoting it with their Americar, but it wasn’t a sales success. > [@Mustangman](#): > > camless hydraulic valve actuation? Why? If it was variable lift and duration, I can see the benefits (we do that today) but it would be very unreliable in 1946. That may have been the main reason for Tucker’s purchase of the Air Cooled Motor Company, in Syracuse, NY. Air Cooled Motor Co was the remnant of the old Franklin automobile company, and after Tucker’s engineers successfully converted those military-grade helicopter engines to water cooling, they proved to be good. > **[Engine of 1948 Tucker Sedan in Henry Ford Museum, December 1964 - The Henry Ford](https://www.thehenryford.org/collections-and-research/digital-collections/artifact/446578/)** > > After problems with their own engine, Preston Tucker and his engineers selected a 334-cubic-inch, six-cylinder unit originally designed for helicopters. Once converted from air to water cooling, the flat-six engine performed beautifully in the Tucker... ---
**Author:** ![Mustangman](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/mustangman/32/44130_2.png) [@Mustangman](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Mustangman)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2025, 4:54pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/a-close-up-look/198742/15 "2025-01-19T16:54:44Z")
An aircraft engine is designed for reliability, for sure. Keeping it air cooled would have resulted in a lighter engine. While many didn’t care so much about fuel economy, that big motor would have likely made that a standout problem. The 334 cid is much more in line with the other engines of the day ; the 301 Olds, the 331 Caddy and Chrysler hemi. ---
**Author:** ![VDCdriver](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/vdcdriver/32/30_2.png) [@VDCdriver](https://community.cartalk.com/u/VDCdriver)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2025, 6:33pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/a-close-up-look/198742/16 "2025-01-19T18:33:11Z")
> [@Mustangman](#): > > The 334 cid is much more in line with the other engines of the day ; the 301 Olds, the 331 Caddy and Chrysler hemi. … and, its lighter weight probably curtailed _some_ of the inherent oversteer. ---
**Author:** ![Mustangman](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/mustangman/32/44130_2.png) [@Mustangman](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Mustangman)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2025, 7:48pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/a-close-up-look/198742/17 "2025-01-19T19:48:46Z")
> [@VDCdriver](#): > > lighter weight probably curtailed _some_ of the inherent oversteer Yes, for sure… if it was lighter. The water jackets added cast iron that was not its base configuration. Bottom line, designing a new car and your own engine and transmission is a HUGE undertaking. Purchasing an existing engine was a good idea to get around that problem… but he just HAD to change it! It was one of the reasons for the failure of the company. ---
**Author:** ![VDCdriver](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/vdcdriver/32/30_2.png) [@VDCdriver](https://community.cartalk.com/u/VDCdriver)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2025, 8:13pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/a-close-up-look/198742/18 "2025-01-19T20:13:25Z")
> [@Mustangman](#): > > It was one of the reasons for the failure of the company. According to this study, it was essentially a big financial problem. Aside from insufficient venture capital investments, the idea of pre-selling accessories in order to raise capital was ruled to be illegal. But, _somewhere_ there must be some people who own unused Tucker luggage, radios, or other accessories that are incredibly rare and… maybe… valuable. [https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=econ\_pubs](https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=econ_pubs)